Cars & Hybrids

The Prius line is expanding rapidly these days.  Toyota will begin selling the bigger and roomier Prius v next month in the U.S., opening up their popular hybrid franchise to those who need to carry a bit more with them on the road.

The Prius v looks a lot like the regular Prius except for the extended cargo space in the rear.  According to Toyota, the vehicle will offer more storage space than 80 percent of all small SUVs - a nice 34.3 cubic feet of it.

The Prius v will use the same hybrid drivetrain as the regular Prius.  As for mileage, the larger size does take down the fuel efficiency a bit.  The Prius v is rated for 44 mpg city and 40 mpg highway with a rating of 42 mpg combined.  The regular Prius has a combined rating of 50 mpg.

For a nice-sized hybrid, the price is actually pretty affordable.  The car comes in three levels ranging from $26,400 to $29,990.

A plug-in version will likely follow soon.

via Green Car Congress

 

Toyota has unveiled a new plug-in version of its hybrid Prius for the 2012 model year. Although the aftermarket has been offering conversion kits to allow it, and Toyota's competitors have come out with a variety of plug-in electric vehicles and hybrids, only now is Toyota producing a hybrid vehicle that can be recharged by plugging it in.

Almost since it was first released, Toyota has been working on numerous new versions of its iconic Prius, but it has taken until recently for any of these to reach the public. We've seen concepts for other Prius options, and Toyota is now bringing these to the market. In addition to the new plug-in version, there is also the original Prius, and the larger Prius v.  Also, Toyota will also be bringing out another version called the Prius c in 2012.

The plug-in Prius now uses lithium ion batteries, rather than the nickel metal-hydride batteries in earlier models. The 4.4 kWh battery will give the new Prius a range of 15 miles at 62 miles per hour (about 24 km at 100 kph) in electric-only drive*. The car "is expected to achieve a manufacturer-estimated 87 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) in combined driving and 49 MPG in hybrid mode."

hat tip to: @JaymiHeimbuch

[* edited to clarify range is for electric drive]

The White House, EPA, and NHTSA have announced new CAFE standards for cars and light trucks. CAFE is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard which governs the efficiency of new vehicles. The new standards begin to take effect in the 2017 model year, when the fleet average should be 35.5 MPG (from the previous standard, which covers the 2012-2016 model years). The new rule extends to 2025, when average fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks is to be 54.5 miles per gallon.

The new guidelines will almost double automotive fuel efficiency standards from where they were when the administration began to press for higher efficiency. "EPA currently intends to propose standards that would be projected to achieve, on an average industry fleet wide basis, 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025 (this would be equivalent, on a mpg-equivalent basis, to 54.5 mpg if all of the CO2 emissions reductions were achieved with fuel economy technology.)"

Under these new guidelines, consumers should save $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, and average fuel savings are expected to be worth $8,000 pre vehicle by 2025. Furthermore, emissions should be cut by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the program, which is "more than the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States last year."

image: U.S. National Archives

Don’t ever let anyone tell you electric cars are new - they aren’t, and here is plenty of proof. If we had been continuously developing battery technology since the electric cars listed below were in operation, most certainly we would be far better off today. No one knew then about climate change and how much impact air pollution could have on human health, but they actually had more electric car choices than we have today.

This is just a handful of the electric vehicles from that era.

 

1891 Morrison (120 years old)
Made by William Morrison in 1891, some say the Morrison was the first electric vehicle in America. It had a four horsepower engine , and could carry 6-12 passengers. Top speed was about 20 mph. The batteries needed to be recharged every 50 miles. It has been said the car was actually completed in 1887 and was driven in a Des Moines parade in 1888. If that is true, the Morrison was first built 124 years ago, and it was built in America, where today they are almost no electric cars on the roads.

 

1900 Riker (111 years old)
A bulky enclosed cabin four passenger sedan that was made about the turn of the century, the Riker featured electric side lamps, wooden-spoked wheels, and a voice tube so passengers could communicate with the driver. Cabin windows could be raised and lowered. 48 battery cells were onboard, with an electric engine near each rear wheel. The driver’s seat was about 6-7 feet in the air.

 

1901 Riker Torpedo (110 years old)
Andrew Riker, the founder of Riker Electric Vehicles, made the Torpedo in 1901 to be the fastest car on the road. On Coney Island November 16, 1901 a Torpedo was driven one mile in 63 seconds, about 57 mph.

 

Studebaker 1902 (109 years old)
Electric Studebakers were made starting in 1902. They made the bus pictured above and bodies for electric taxis. They also made cars which were available in a variety of styles.

 

 

1906 Krieger (105 years old)
This vehicle was made in Paris, and it is presumed to have been owned by US Senator George P. Wetmore of Rhode Island. The Krieger actually had regenerative braking which could be used to recharge the batteries while coasting downhill. It had a tiller/steering wheel in the very front, and hubcaps!

 

1909 Babcock (102 years old)
A Babcock electric vehicle set a mind-blowing record for its time. In October of 1906 the New York Times reported one driven by F.A. Babcock Jr. traveled 100 miles on a single charge. It averaged about 14-18 mph for the journey between Jersey City and Philadelphia. Only stock batteries were used. The previous record was 40 miles.

 

1909 Bailey (102 years old)
The Bailey electrics were known for durability. One was driven through four New England states in the same run as an endurance test. A Bailey was also driven up part of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire. The peak is over 6,000 feet. There were many more electrics on the road during the period. They were quieter and emitted less pollution directly than their gasoline counterparts.

Image Credits: 1900 Riker, Smithsonian, 1909 Babcock – Infrogmation, 1909 Bailey, Frick Auto Museum, Riker Torpedo, Owls Head Transportation Museum. All others public domain, or unknown.

Related Links:

• Three More Electric Cars Coming From Nissan
• Electric Chargers for Oregon Freeway

A study from the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC) has concluded that building more freeways in metropolitan areas that are congested can actually make traffic jams worse, and that a no-freeways approach to traffic engineering and urban planning can be better for people and the environment. Of the alternative approach to new freeway building, the authors say, “From a practical perspective, a no-more-freeway policy can relieve transportation funds for other potentially more effective usages, such as improving urban arterial street system, improving transit level of service and coverage, implementing demand management and pricing strategies, and facilitating more efficient land use patterns (e.g. high density in-fill and transit-oriented developments).” (TRB.org)

Building more freeways to address existing traffic problems is a short-term solution, that can be very expensive and actually contribute to bigger issues in the long-term. For example, in 1900 there were 149 miles of paved roads in the United States, and now there are about 4 million. Cities like San Francisco, Portland and New York have all removed well-trafficked urban highways and seen improvements in congestion and quality of life. In Seoul, Korea an urban highway was removed that had over 100,000 trips a day and yet there was less congestion when it was gone. The space it had been on was converted to a 1,000 acre farm with a restored stream. Summer temperatures were lower because there wasn’t a massive amount of concrete to absorb sunlight and stay hot, and there were more plants to improve air quality.

If the default mentality is to build more freeways and not light rail or new bus lines, taxpayers wind up footing enormously costly projects that produce dubious results and sometimes add to the problems. In Seattle, an aging highway has been considered for removal or replacement. Replacing it could cost billions and take years. Cary Moon, who opposes the new highway said, “If you try to build your way out of congestion, you’ll ruin your city or go broke trying.” (cnu.org)

An unfinished freeway in Milwaukee would have cost $100 million to complete but was removed for $25 million. Using the new space more wisely resulted in $300 million in development investments.

Another potential benefit is that less animals are killed in vehicle accidents, if there are fewer drivers and highways.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Related Links:

• SUVs May be Banned in Paris
• Seven Electric Cars over 100 Years Old

The Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt launched around the same time, both offering American drivers electric vehicle options.  Automobile magazine decided to see which car was most capturing the consumers' attention, and the LEAF came out as the clear winner so far.  Nissan has sold 3,875 LEAFs so far in 2011, while Chevy has sold 2,745 Volts.

One would assume that the combination of all-electric and gasoline engine like the Volt offers would be more desirable to drivers right now since the U.S. electric charging infrastructure is slowly expanding, but it seems that a price difference of $8,000 is a bigger factor. The LEAF costs $32,780 before tax incentives and rebates, while the Volt starts at $41,000.

These sales numbers only reflect six months of activity, but this could be a great sign for automakers getting ready to release all-electric models, especially since these sell numbers include the production setback Nissan faced after the tsunami that hit Japan in March.  Nissan expects to deliver 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles by the end of 2011.

via Automobile

A plan that originated in the 1980s to build a system of interstate bike paths has come back to life after lying dormant for 30 years. Only two stretches of bike interstate were established back then:  U.S. Bicycle Route 1 from Virginia to North Carolina (initially planned to run from Florida to Maine) and U.S. Bicycle Route 76 from Virginia to Illinois (initially planned to run from Virginia to Oregon), but new routes may soon cover the whole country.

The Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials has already approved six new routes. Four of these will be in Alaska, one will span Michigan's lower peninsula and one will go from New Hampshire to Maine.  Another 15 have made it past the planning phase.  The ultimate goal is to have a nationwide system of bicycle routes, and 42 states have expressed support for the plan.

If you're curious, the eight states that haven't jumped on board yet are Alabama, Hawaii, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

AASHTO has created a full map with prioritized routes marked.  It's a sight to behold.

via GOOD

 

The website Fueleconomy.gov states that for every 5 mph driven over the speed of 60 mph, 24 cents per gallon of gas is effectively added to the cost of fuel, because of the decrease in fuel efficiency for your vehicle when traveling at higher speeds. If this simple formula is accurate, then driving at 75 mph would cost an extra 72 cents per gallon. Driving 80 mph would add an extra ninety-six cents per gallon!

Combined with rapid acceleration, and sudden braking, speeding can reduce fuel efficiency by thirty-three percent, according to the same website. A vehicle with a fuel efficiency of twenty miles per gallon, driven aggressively as noted above, would be only getting about 12-13 miles per gallon, resulting in the owner paying far more in gas costs than if he or she drove sensibly.

Gas prices currently in the U.S. have risen, as everyone is aware, but are we aware we could simply drive slower, and in some cases, stop speeding illegally, to save money on gas?

Republicans and some Democrats, including the president, are going ahead to try to accelerate more offshore oil drilling in American waters, and yet extra drilling won’t bring gas prices down significantly because the amount of oil we can produce is so small, it is next to nothing compared to the huge amounts we consume. (The LA Times reported that we Americans consume nearly 25 percent of the world’s crude oil, and yet our own reserves equal only two percent.)

Yet the current federal government apparently is going to drill more anyway, even though it won’t help gas prices much and is clearly a political ploy. At the same time, none of the politicians are telling people free things they can do to reduce their gas consumption and therefore save money.

Maintaining the correct air pressure in tires also helps fuel efficiency, up to three percent. If the engine is tuned properly, that can save another four percent. Idling also wastes gas, so if you are waiting in a parking lot for someone who is doing an errand, turn off the engine.

Another free, and very easy thing to do to increase fuel efficiency and save money, is simply to remove any unnecessary items from your vehicle. Some people drive around with many pounds of stuff in their trunks or back areas, though they don’t use these items on their trips or when they arrive.

If possible, park your car in shade during hot weather so you don’t have to blast the air conditioner to cool it down. If it is not possible, use a windshield sun shade as the dashboard is a solar collector and can get very hot, which requires energy to cool down.

Driving around with an empty roof rack that you don’t ever use will also decrease fuel efficiency because it creates extra drag from air. Replace worn tires, and consider low-rolling resistance ones to increase mileage also.

These are just a number of things you can do that are vehicle-related, but of course, we can all car pool, drive less, ride public transportation, ride bikes, and maybe even consider walking once in a while? The Europeans ride bikes, walk and ride public transportation, and are a little less in girth than we are, so it seems to be working for them.

Image Credit: Aaron Lawrence

Related Links:

• New Source of Gas Is Wood?
• Whiskey-Powered Cars for Scotland

Like many people, I regularly shelled out $60 to fill up my car’s gas tank and sadly realized that I spend the majority of my day inside in front of a computer. While the thought of ditching my car and commuting to work by bike always intrigued me, I was deterred by my lack of biking experience and the prospect of sharing the road with aggressive drivers.

At the behest of some bike-riding pals, I recently (and very nervously) commuted to work by bike, and lo and behold, it was a fun and invigorating experience. Not only did I shave time off of my commute, but I also saved precious money on gas. It was energizing to be outside and empowering to use my own two legs for transportation.

Below are four tips that will ease the stress and increase the fun of commuting to work by bike.

Get the Gear:

You don’t need the most expensive bike for a successful commute. Most any type of bike will suffice for your commute to work as long as it fits you and you feel comfortable riding it. If your bike has been collecting dust, your local bike shop can tune it up for a minimal fee. And, don’t forget to get fitted for a helmet!

Map a Route:

To plan the easiest, most direct and safest route to your destination, check out the maps provided by your local bike coalition. While using Google maps is great in a pinch, the maps provided by many local bike coalitions outline existing bike routes, paths, and lanes, and they indicate the grade of a street so you can be sure to avoid those steep hills.

Plan Your Arrival to Work:

Depending on your office dress code and the amount you anticipate sweating, you might want to pack or keep a change of clothes (and stick of deodorant) handy at the office. If your office doesn’t provide showers, check out the facilities at nearby gyms - some even offer free trial memberships.

If your office doesn’t offer storage space for bikes, talk to HR about hanging hooks, cleaning out a closet, or buying a bike barn for storage. In New York City, the Bicycle Access Law was passed in 2010, which requires owners and managers of commercial buildings to permit employees to enter with their bicycles.

Be Safe:

Always wear your helmet and be aware and courteous to your fellow bicyclists and motorists. Check out your local bike coalition for safety workshops and advice. The SF Bike Coalition even offers a four-hour Urban Bicycling Workshop for beginner bikers with the aim to make novice cyclists feel more at east on the street.

Even for the inexperienced cyclist, biking to work is a fun, healthy, and rewarding activity. What is your advice to beginners for a fun and successful commute to work by bike?

Image credit: infomatique via Flickr

More healthy and green articles from Care2:

• Benefits of Biking
• Roots, Wings and a New (Green) Nest – Win Green Guides!
• Portland: America’s Bike City (video)

You might have seen news articles recently about a study saying SUVS are safer than other vehicles. The study only addressed the safety of people in the SUV, and failed to mention the very troubling fact that passengers in other vehicles hit by SUVs are more likely to die.

How much more likely to die? It depends on the information source, but one says 16 times more likely and another says 6 times more likely. Additionally, in accidents involving SUVs and other passenger vehicles, nearly 98 percent of those who were killed were in the non-SUVs. Another source says pedestrians hit by SUVs have a 300 percent greater risk of serious injury than pedestrians struck by smaller cars like sedans. (Another study found that in fatal accidents involving SUVS, children inside them were 24 percent more likely to die, than if they were in minivans.)

So why do SUVs cause so much extra destruction? For one thing they typically weigh more, or much more. Combine their extra weight with the fact they are taller and have higher bumpers (sometimes also brush guards), and you can see how they function like large, heavy battering rams on wheels. A Hummer weighs over 8,000 pounds! The GMC Yukon four door is 5,500, and the Nissan Armada is 5,300.

Bumpers are designed to impact on the same level as the bumpers on other vehicles, but the higher bumpers and brush guards on SUVs result in hitting smaller vehicles above their bumpers where there is less protection. If you imagine an SUV hitting a mid-size sedan on the side, the SUVs front would be about shoulder and head-high for a person in the smaller vehicle. At this level, a person is more vulnerable to serious injury to the brain, neck, and chest organs such as the heart, lungs, and major arteries. SUVs typically also require more distance to slow down and stop, which makes them less able to avoid accidents.

Given the fact that in the U.S., nearly 90 percent of vehicles on the roads are not large vehicles, you can see how vulnerable their occupants are to damage from SUVs.

So why would the Institute for Highway Safety fail to not mention that SUVs are actually more dangerous for the the majority of motorists and pedestrians? Who knows exactly, it could have been an honest mistake. Another possible answer lies in the fact the Institute for Highway is funded by the auto insurance companies, and SUVS provide them with more revenue because they cost typically 10 to 20 percent more to insure, which might not sound like a huge difference, but if 15 million people are paying an extra $300 per year, that is $4.5 billion per year. If it was an extra $400 per year, then the total would $6 billion a year.

The Institute for Highway Safety definitely seems to have a conflict of interest; financially the auto insurers backing them stand to gain greatly from the public perception that SUVS are a good vehicle for consumers to buy. Just one example, if you buy a new GMC Yukon Denali, insurance for five years would cost nearly $9,000, according to Edmunds.com. (Fuel for the same period - a whopping $18,000). The true cost of ownership, including the sticker price, is $76,000 - and if you hit another vehicle and injure or kill someone else, the costs explode further. Also, imagine what happens to SUV insurance if you have any speeding tickets, accident history, or a DUI.

“Yes auto rates for SUVs are generally higher than for automobiles. Rates of course correlate to risk - and there are a lot of risk factors with SUVs. Not so much what affects them, but what they do to other vehicles,” said Loretta L. Worters, vice president of communications for the Insurance Information Institute. (autoinsurancequotes.com)

Why would the IIHS release the results of such a study now? It could be with high gas prices, people are shying away from gas guzzlers like SUVS, especially when they see they also have to pay extra for insurance. Also in tough times like these, spending extra is simply unwise. Additionally the growing green trend is likely having some dampening effect on the purchasing of very fuel-inefficient vehicles, when there are more sensible alternatives available like the hybrid Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, Jetta and Golf TDI, and electrics like the Nissan Leaf and new Ford Focus. This article is about the damage SUVS cause to people, but it must also be said they contribute more to climate change, simply due to the fact they require much more gasoline, and produce more CO2.

Image credit: Brady Holt

Related Links:

• SUVs May Be Banned in Paris
• Toyota Recalls 50,000 SUVs